I think it's fair to say that based on how we communicated all of these things going back eight years, we communicated exactly the same way, with acquisition costs and 20 years' worth of sustainment costs.

So you would have told him that $25 billion was acquisition sustainment or operating life cycle, whatever terminology you were using. You would have told him that was that number and you would have said the $15 billion was simply acquisition and sustainment. Is that what you're telling me?

My question is to the Deputy Minister of Public Works. My concern is more a broad one rather than the specifics of the matter of the F-35.

The Auditor General was very clear in his determination that Public Works did not demonstrate due diligence in its oversight role in this matter, and the department has challenged that finding, as reported in the Auditor General's report. Do you continue to hold the view that you can rely on such short-circuited procedures as applied here, or would you follow in future, as the Auditor General has recommended, Treasury Board rules and the principles of good management and due diligence?

I explained this Tuesday, when I was before the committee, that when the Auditor General came before the committee he stated, and I quoted him, that some due diligence had been applied by Public Works. I also explained that the reason we had a disagreement had to do with the fact that “did not demonstrate”, under recommendation 2.81, is an absolute, and I am comfortable with the fact that he has recognized that some due diligence has been applied. This, to me, was the position that we took with him in the course of the interaction we had with his office.

Now, in all fairness, this is a unique procurement process, no question about that. In retrospect, we collectively--but I'll speak for myself--if we were to look back, a different frame would have been put in place to carry out our responsibilities. And I would—

Mr. Fonberg, you were discussing the three kinds of costs, and my colleague Mr. Allen wasn't able to allow you to finish. I think it would be very useful to this committee if you could table the facts and the details of the composition of the costs for all the members of this committee.

What I'm hearing very clearly is that your analysis, right from the start, has included acquisition costs and sustainment costs for 20 years. Then you, as we did here, heard from the Auditor General, who is now suggesting that we also include operating costs. If you could table with this committee for our report the composition of those, that would be helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few quick questions, short questions, but I want to understand. Have we purchased any fighter aircraft to replace the fleet of CF-18s yet?

I'm glad, sir, that you mentioned the MOU, because I have a few questions. First, when did we first join the joint strike fighter program? Would you be kind enough to explain what the joint project office is, who runs it, and what it does?